^No, what he's asking is whether the prefix is an acronym, N. U. for "New Universe."

From what I can tell, "nu-" is an informal or deliberately incorrect spelling of "new" which originated in the 20th century in reference to music genres, like "nu-metal." At least, that's what the Internet dictionaries say. It always struck me as the kind of cutesy misspelling that marketers create for product names. Personally I find it rather annoying.

We need a better long-term name for the new films' universe. The makers of the 2009 film gave us this nice, handy label "Prime" for the original continuity, but we don't have anything of comparable simplicity and clarity for the new continuity -- or anything as catchy as "the Mirror Universe." "Abramsverse" is a clunky coinage, and it's possible that the timeline will continue to be explored by other creators after Abrams and Bad Robot have moved on to other things. And it won't be a new -- or "nu" -- universe forever, so that label doesn't seem like it'll have staying power. Memory Alpha's preferred label for it is "the alternate reality," but that's so generic. Alas, I can't think of a better term. The post-Nero universe? The Red Matter timeline?

I think there's a slightly disparaging quality to it. The way I see nu- is to read it as "this is what the kids call ... now". So nu-metal, this is what the kids call metal now; nu-Trek is what the kids call Trek now. Basically when something has been regurgitated in a way to appeal to "today's audiences" but might leave a bad taste in some of the old guard.

And just so you nu, telling someone in-thread that you're putting them on Ignore is considered poor form, and thus is to be avoided here.

I'll give it a pass this once, as I have an idea that English is not your first language and that "nu" doesn't necessarily translate well, but Myk's point was not an invalid one:

The "nuTrek" tag has been in regular use on Trek discussion boards and news sites since before the 2009 movie's release, as have "nuKirk" and "nuSpock and "nUhura" and all the rest, so it wasn't entirely unreasonable of him to jokingly inquire where you've been all this time. Take the question in the spirit in which it was offered, and don't be so quick to take offense, eh?

I'm betting it will stick. It'd be difficult to beat the ease of adding only two letters, and it's already in use. Any new name would have to be pretty damn catchy to take over now.

Click to expand...

Well, first off, it's far from universally used now. Some people use "nuTrek" while others use "Abramsverse" while still others use "JJ Trek" or other labels. You're speaking as if a clear consensus had already emerged for the former, but that doesn't fit with my experience.

I think there's a slightly disparaging quality to it. The way I see nu- is to read it as "this is what the kids call ... now". So nu-metal, this is what the kids call metal now; nu-Trek is what the kids call Trek now. Basically when something has been regurgitated in a way to appeal to "today's audiences" but might leave a bad taste in some of the old guard.

Click to expand...

I've always had the impression that it was the label favored by people who wanted to dismiss the Abrams continuity or make it sound ridiculous.

And what I'm looking for is not some vernacular for fandom to use. I'm thinking more in terms of a formal designator that can be used in the long term as a permanent descriptor by reference texts, critics, the studio itself, etc. Although such things can take a long time to emerge. Once TNG came along, people started referring to the original series as "Star Trek Classic" or "Classic Trek," by analogy with Classic Coke vs. New Coke from the '80s. It wasn't until years later that the subtitle The Original Series came into common or formal usage. And it wasn't until the '90s that the '73 series began to be referred to as Star Trek: The Animated Series. Before then I'd always just called it "the animated Star Trek," or when I was younger, "the cartoon Star Trek."

So our current labels like "Abramsverse" and "nuTrek" are the equivalent of the "classic Trek" nickname we used to use for the original show. What I'd like to see is the emergence of something more like the TOS and TAS designators, a more official and formal category label for ease of reference. Something timeless that can still be used 20 or 30 years from now, after the novelty has worn off.

You're speaking as if a clear consensus had already emerged for the former

Click to expand...

That's not what I meant at all (although reading it back I can see why it would read that way), I only meant that I believe "nuTrek" as a term will not go away any time soon.

I personally don't use it disparagingly, I just use it because it is a very easy way to distinguish it from previous Treks. I personally would have preferred nuTOS as a simpler version, but what are ya gonna do?

And what I'm looking for is not some vernacular for fandom to use. I'm thinking more in terms of a formal designator that can be used in the long term as a permanent descriptor by reference texts, critics, the studio itself, etc.

Click to expand...

That was my mistake then, sorry. I misunderstood your point on that one. Although didn't the "official" designations all start out as fandom ones?